Autonemesis

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Toto

I assume that under the Texas sodomy holding, that dildo law is just a quaint legal footnote.

Toto

The vote on Pryor's nomination has been postponed to next Thursday. Arlen Spector is still officially undecided.

Pryor vote delayed again

Leviathan

My my, if the posts in this thread don't echo one another's sentiment.

Exactly what is wrong with appointing a member of the "right," which exhibits the beliefs of that political party? Republicans have constantly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade , and have came close a few times. And its not that I agree with their positions, but I'm not about to bias their point of view with statements all over this thread, simply b/c they disagree on a political issue with me.

Toto

Great minds, as they say. . .

The problem is that Pryor is not just a member of the "right." He is a far out extremist whose philosophy of law is radically off the charts, not just on Roe v. Wade. He is a young man on an ideological mission.

Leviathan

Great minds see both sides, respect both viewpoints, and don't slander the side they disagree with, but do make a decision about which side is right and for what reasons. Everyone has assertions they can make, such as saying, "Look at that religious lunatic," but not everyone can craft justifiable reasons for their beliefs.

Quote:

The problem is that Pryor is not just a member of the "right." He is a far out extremist whose philosophy of law is radically off the charts, not just on Roe v. Wade. He is a young man on an ideological mission.

My my, I'm sure there are no members of courts, either in the past or present, of the "extreme" liberal persuasion, who have had a similar "ideological mission."

He's simply advocating a position, and if the people in power, with nomination powers, can nominate him, and the people verify those nominations through the approval, pursuant to the United States Constitution, then more power to him and his "extremism."

Toto

If you don't think there is some basis for charging Pryor with religious lunacy, you haven't read this entire thread.

We are advocating that the Senate use its constitutional powers of advice and consent and reject Pryor.

Leviathan

Please make note of the fact that I never said that he *wasn't* a right-wing advocate, nor have I argued his political views justifiable.

All I have argued is that there are other judges out there, just as "ideological" as this gentleman, on the other end of the political spectrum. As I stated before, state your mind, the Senate will have such a vote, and the people will decide.

But the people can only (truly) decide if there is a genuine, credible debate on the candidates qualifications, and not just a shouting match that he's a "religious lunatic."

Toto

I wish that there were some equally radical left wingers out there, but I challenge you to find any.

Besides, he is a religious nut, which should disqualify him from the judiciary.

But I think you will find some more specific criticisms of his stance on federalism, privacy, and the proper interpretation of the First Amendment if you read through the links on this thread.

Leviathan

Well, if all I have to do is find someone on the left end of the spectrum, for which the right-wing argues that they believe they are an extremist, then that isn't too hard.

The judges on the Circuit Court in which California is a state has a history of being the most overturned district, by a long shot, in the nation. When the highly-criticized "One Nation Under God" decision was handed down, from on high atop the "liberal" ivory tower, many news articles noted this fact.

That example suffice, or should I jump on lexis and look for law reviews as well?

Is it your position that American judges, some are right wing extremists, but that there are *no* left wing loonies out there?

And please make note of my statement, "But the people can only (truly) decide if there is a genuine, credible debate on the candidates qualifications, and not just a shouting match that he's a "religious lunatic." It is my belief that statements such as "he's a religious lunatic" are statements of belief, mere assertions, and do nothing for helping construct a real, sincere debate on the merits of the candidates qualitifications. It amounst to this: :banghead: